Over the past year, this culture of diversity has encountered an intense challenge, posed by the political conflicts in the Middle East region, and the reactions from all around the globe. I wish to preserve sincere dialogue, reflection, inquiry, and curiosity. With this article, I share a piece of my own culture—one that may at times seem difficult to accept and, in other moments, evoke pain and discomfort. As a German-Indonesian, I have spent countless dinner conversations back home justifying my views, building up a frustration that is neither helpful nor pleasant. So, knowing that I do not know anything (nod to Socrates), my approach now is to remain curious. Asking questions is the main feature of an interview, and so in line with my new approach and in hoping to achieve a meaningful contribution to NYU Abu Dhabi dialogue culture, I interviewed Dr. Felix Klein.

Dr. Klein is the German government’s Commissioner for Jewish Life and Fight Against Antisemitism - a position unique to Germany and a byproduct of its history. The role was created by the former German chancellor, Angela Merkel in 2018, as a form of “acceptance that what we were doing was not enough,” and a vow to do better.

Since then, Dr. Klein has been in office. His job entails “mak[ing] public appearances and press statements, in which [he] aim[s] to mobilize the German community to stand up against antisemitism in a unified effort.” Further, he takes on the role of a coordinator, overseeing and attuning the different projects that the federal and state offices have founded, and qualifies as the person of contact for Jewish persons and organizations to facilitate the cooperation between the government and those affected. According to him, “The fight against antisemitism is not a Jewish one; all of German society is responsible for it, but the voice of those that are affected directly are essential to our projects”. He is right – Germany has a greater responsibility to reflect, remember, and improve. The Holocaust, a systematic genocide of 6 million Jews by the German Nazi regime happened less than a century ago. Essentially, the tensions we all are sensing today are a result of the guilt and horrors of the past and the overpowering urge to do the right thing, whatever the exact right thing may be.

Antisemitism is not just a Jewish issue but rather something that should concern everyone. Dr. Klein himself, for example, is not Jewish, but when I asked him what makes this job meaningful, he told me “For historical reasons, we have to be especially sensitive regarding antisemitism.”

What makes racism or islamophobia distinct from antisemitism? According to Dr. Klein, antisemitism can be clearly differentiated from racism, “despite there being definite overlaps”. He explains that “A racist attacks and maybe even kills the object of his hatred, but he always sees himself superior to the other. There is a certain hierarchy that allows for coexistence. Some individuals with antisemitic views, however, may be influenced by an unfounded belief in a secret Jewish influence, which in extreme cases can lead them to support radical measures against Jewish communities. Racism, the concept on which slavery and colonization are erected, is in this case dismissed as the lesser evil. From my perspective, a dangerous slope; comparing and classifying forms of hatred, but Dr. Klein’s statement speaks to Germans who distance themselves from antisemitism and yet fail to understand the interconnectedness of hatred and fear of Otherness.

I felt obligated to ask whether the fight against antisemitism goes hand in hand with the fight against other forms of discrimination, Dr. Klein acknowledges that the traditional German antisemite rejects anything different. “The worst thing to happen would be if people saw the fight against racism as an alternative to the fight against antisemitism”, he adds, and yet my instinct is that we are not very far off from that in today’s world of polarization.

According to Dr. Klein, the biggest challenge of his job is the root of the issue being out of his control. He states, “The Middle Eastern conflict, for example, has always been the biggest cause for a rise in antisemitism across Europe, but the event itself is outside our control. We can’t combat the cause of antisemitism.” He explains that for the past fifty years, whenever there are conflicts in the Middle Eastern region, antisemitic attacks all around Europe spike. Framing the cause of antisemitism as something external to German society seems like a cop-out.

Further, judging from Dr. Klein’s statement, there is a need for *control * to solve the problem at hand; when really, his job is not supposed to be about control, on the contrary, it is meant to be about independent introspection, collective questioning, self-criticism… I believe we owe it to the world to do more than keep control.

Control neglects dialogue, rejects diversity of opinion, and enforces rather than fosters. Symbolically, I believe it captures Germany’s current composition pretty well. Confronted with a complex and frightening history, the question of what went wrong back then is at the forefront of public thought. The conclusions that are drawn, however, fall short of the meaning of ‘Never Again’. Despite being such a powerful phrase, some seem to forget that it means never again a genocide, never again a persecution of a people, never again massacres of children; a statement of morale and ethics that includes, and is inspired by, but not exclusively translates to ‘never again the persecution of Jews in Germany.’ The form of collective memory and reflection that we practice is incredibly influential in the unfolding of our collective future. Therefore, although the acceptance and acknowledgment of the crimes committed is already the right direction, the feeling of guilt as a driving factor doesn’t promise effective, sustainable results.

In practice, the attempts of control that Dr. Klein refers to include training for civil servants, schooling, and commissioners in all police stations that train the officers. Education as a means of increasing public awareness is a meaningful and powerful endeavor. However, I also feel obligated to highlight the other side of things, where media outlets in Germany (like *Der Tagesspiegel *and Der Freitag) have reported increased police brutality at pro-Palestinian demonstrations, exposing a central question of what antisemitism even is and how it is practiced.

This question remains central in legal debates that have been circulating in the country for the past months. In my conversation with Dr. Klein, I also addressed the new resolution that was passed on November 9th, 2024. The title of the resolution is “Nie wieder ist Jetzt - Jüdisches Leben in Deutschland schützen, bewähren, und stärken“ (Never Again is Now - Protecting, Preserving and Strengthening Jewish Life in Germany) and the date of its finalization was chosen symbolically, to be the date that commemorates the Night of Broken Glass, when Jewish stores and homes were brutally raided by the Nazis in 1938. The message is clear: in times of political unrest and discriminatory exclusion, the German parliament stands with the German Jews and vows to protect them. However, there were concerns raised by organizations like Amnesty International, and Akademie der Künste over the definition of antisemitism that the German Parliament wants all state and public institutions to adopt. In the resolution, the German government adopts the IHRA (International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance) definition of Antisemitism. IHRA itself has advised against using the definition for legal orientation. Similar to the previous response by Dr. Klein, the resolution screams control. Controlling a politically active and educated population in contemporary times is not an easy undertaking unless you encourage self-censorship. That is effectively what Resolution 20/13627 is doing.

I asked Dr. Klein about his opinion on the resolution. He is aware of the criticism but wants to remind us that this resolution is not a law, but rather the government’s opinion. Diplomatically, he goes on to explain that of course, the freedom of expression and opinion that we value so highly in Germany will not be threatened. Rather, the resolution is meant to encourage creators and organizers to think about whether their project is antisemitic. “Same goes with racism: if an artwork is racist, we all voice our concerns over it.” He explains it with the following logic: “Here in Germany, antisemitism is a more sensitive issue than elsewhere, and that is okay.” He uses the comparison of sexually revealing artworks that are not shown in more traditional countries out of respect for culture.“It is a little concerning to me that there seems to be some sort of double-standard regarding freedom of expression and antisemitism.” He makes logical sense, it is true that “here in Germany, antisemitic expressions are more dangerous because they automatically dismiss our nationalist-socialist past, something that we cannot afford to do.”

However, some of his responses are debatable. The fact that this is a resolution, for example, does not mean that it is legally binding, but rather an opinion of the parliament. Despite being a de jure non-legally binding text, the 2019 resolution regarding the Boycott, Divest, Sanction (BDS) movement was nevertheless largely effective. Further, since this resolution concerns funding, mostly for education and culture, even if the consequence is not arrest, it is defunding, which causes the end of projects or even whole organizations, and expulsion of students, as outlined in the resolution specifically.

The fear of many protestors that criticism of Israel becomes illegal is left unsaid in the interview.

As with any difficult dialogue, it is comforting to find common ground. Most importantly, it is impactful to realize that we strive toward a common vision of the future. Dr. Klein’s vision, and one that I share, is that “there is no longer a need for police surveillance in front of synagogues and Jewish institutions or any other religious institutions for that matter. I wish for Jews, Arabs, Sinti, and Roma, everyone to live in safety and freedom, that the diversity of our society is accepted. That everyone understands that diversity is what strengthens our country, and increases creativity and capital. That is my utopia.”

On the path there, “we have to reiterate much stronger than before that it is natural for our societies to be diverse, that it should be seen as natural that we have synagogues and mosques here in Germany. I think it is a psychological rule that it is harder to hate something that you are familiar with. Most of the time when people say stuff about Jews, they have never even met a Jew, let alone been friends with one. We have to invest much more into education and cross-cultural programs for everyone to appreciate how enriching a diverse community can be.” He points out the UAE as a stunning example of “what we should be doing more of”; creating spaces for shared religions and heritages and exploring one another’s cultures.

Reflecting on this interview, I find myself conflicted. At a time where talking politics is no longer a merely intellectual undertaking, but a strikingly personal one, how much do I put out there? How much am I justified to say? My conversation with Dr. Klein was pleasant and framing him as the bad guy would be easy and wrong. Shying away from arguments and speaking your mind, however, also does more harm than good. I believe this struggle is one that we will not get rid of very soon, so acquiring the skill set and leaning into discomfort sooner rather than later is the right thing to do.

Germany’s attempts at dealing with its unique position are bringing to the surface a form of collective memory and a form of future-building that is guilt-ridden, narrow, and lacking depth. Creating a solid, breathtaking vision for a shared future that we can hold onto and work towards instills not only hope but collective conscience.

I thank Dr. Klein for this interview.